Loyalist troops = Domestic insurrectionists in Patriot eyes.
Posted on 05/04/2018 6:42:25 AM PDT by Bull Snipe
Leading elements of Union Major General George G. Meade's Army of the Potomac cross the Rapidan River. With a few hours they would clash with General Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia in the Battle of the Wilderness. Lieutenant General Grant's Overland Campaign had begun.
“Lincoln’s views were also, by today’s standards, racist but there are degrees . . .”
O.K.
Since you have introduced the concept of racist rankings, by today’s standards where would you rank Lincoln’s racism on a scale of 1 to 10 (where 10 would be bad)?
The British also encouraged Tory military action and that would qualify as "domestic insurrections" in the revolutionists' eyes, but I really don't think you are interested in hearing about that.
P.S. If I post to you because of something you say, feel free to post back to me, but I don't need to have you posting to me everytime somebody else says something you disagree with.
The original draft contained this grievance: “he has excited treasonable insurrections of our fellow-citizens, with the allurement of forfeiture & confiscation of our property.”
Thomas Jefferson later explained why this and other statements directed at British citizens were struck: “The pusillanimous idea that we had friends in England worth keeping terms with, still haunted the minds of many. For this reason those passages which conveyed censures on the people of England were struck out, lest they should give them offense.”
To my knowledge, Jefferson didn't say the statements were rewritten in code so no one could understand them and be offended. The man said, “struck out.”
Loyalist troops = Domestic insurrectionists in Patriot eyes.
Still indulging the nitwit I see. You know you’re only encouraging him to more of his foolishness.
Carry on.
“Loyalist troops = Domestic insurrectionists in Patriot eyes.”
Problem identified. You have not read the original draft of the DOI.
Jefferson referred to them as “treasonable insurrections.”
“Merciless Indian savages” were something entirely different.
Later, “excited domestic insurrections amongst us” was something entirely different than either.
Read it again. For the first time.
“Still indulging the nitwit I see. You know you’re only encouraging him to more of his foolishness.
Carry on.”
Is this your way of asking to be let out the back door?
If so, go with best wishes.
He’d probably be at a 8 or 9. Now Jefferson Davis and the rest of the leaders of the confederacy would be 19 or 20.
Setting aside for a moment the superaddition, what ranking would you give the person who infamously said: “Segregation today. Segregation tomorrow. Segregation forever.”
So, I gather you have facts to place in evidence supporting a different opinion from mine?
Or do you just sit in back row shooting spit-balls at your classmates?
jeffersondem: "Thomas Jefferson does.
And author Adam Goodheart, who can scarcely be described as pro-southern, does in his balanced presentation "Domestic Insurrection."
Your Adam Goodheart makes a factual error (suggesting less than expertise) in the process of trying to agree with you:
In fact "domestic insurrections amongst us" appears nowhere in Jefferson's draft, but
So, which was the bigger threat & more likely to be mentioned?
In 1776 there were roughly 500,000 loyalists, of whom 25,000 served the British army and 70,000 emigrated after the war.
Of those loyalists about 5,000 were slaveholders who took their slaves with them into exile.
Hmmmm...in 1787 there was no debate, North or South, about the morality of slavery -- it was seen as a necessary evil by some, but as unnecessary & evil by others.
In those days Northern & Southern populations were roughly equal, but 95% of US slaves lived in Southern states, only 5% in the North, representing 2% of Northern populations.
By 1787 five of seven Northern states (plus Vermont) had begun abolition, with New York & New Jersey soon following.
So Northerners were able to convince themselves that gradual abolition was doable and acceptable when implied by representatives from Southern states.
That's because Founders in 1787 believed Union came first, abolition would come second, as did Lincoln in 1861.
“he has incited treasonable insurrections of our fellow citizens”
is found in Jefferson’s draft and clearly refers to loyalist whites, not slave revolts.”
You are correct saying this.
Then something happened to “treasonable insurrections of our fellow citizens, with the allurements of forfeiture & confiscation of our property.”
Thomas Jefferson later explained why this and other statements directed at British citizens were struck: “The pusillanimous idea that we had friends in England worth keeping terms with, still haunted the minds of many. For this reason those passages which conveyed censures on the people of England were struck out, lest they should give them offense.”
And interestingly enough, the highest law in the land, the US Constitution requires that they be returned to the person to whom their labor is legally due according to the laws of any state.
There is no wiggle room in it. The Federal troops were emphatically breaking constitutional law by refusing to do this.
It's funny that they only sought to enforce parts of the constitution they wanted, and ignored parts they didn't like. Like that business of carving out West Virginia when the constitution explicitly prohibits it.
It's reported that Lincoln's views "evolved" over time, and his calling for black enfranchisement in 1865 led John Wilkes Booth to assassinate him.
So what about 1855? Where was Lincoln then?
I'd say maybe half-way between Jefferson Davis-John Wilkes Booth and the Lincoln of April 14, 1865.
Compared to today's standards?
Well, whose standards, those of entirely reasonable people such as ourselves, or insane racists like, oh, I don't know, Maxine Watters ("impeach 45"), BLM ("pigs in a blanket..."), Rev. Wrong ("US of KKK"), Louis Farrahkan ("Hitler was a great man") & on & on.
By those standards, Lincoln would be in the deep negative numbers, surely.
You disagree?
Sure, but freed -- emancipated -- and never returned to their former "masters", offered jobs with wages and enlistment in colored regiments.
In due time the 13th, 14th & 15th amendments enforced full enfranchisement.
DiogenesLamp: "And interestingly enough, the highest law in the land, the US Constitution requires that they be returned to the person to whom their labor is legally due according to the laws of any state.
There is no wiggle room in it.
The Federal troops were emphatically breaking constitutional law by refusing to do this."
Total rubbish & nonsense, and you well know that.
The US Constitution protects US citizens in good standing, certainly not lawbreakers or those who declared secession and war against the United States.
That's no great legal-leap, it's just common sense -- outlaws suffer the consequences of their actions.
In the case of war, "Contraband" was acknowledged & practiced for centuries and could include any property considered important to war.
It was also used by Confederates to seize Northern freed-blacks whenever they could, for return to Confederate slave markets.
So your assertions the Union somehow violated Confederate "property rights in slaves" are sheer nonsense, and by now you well know it.
“It’s reported that Lincoln’s views “evolved” over time, and his calling for black enfranchisement in 1865 led John Wilkes Booth to assassinate him.”
Lincoln was just starting to turn his life around.
:)
You get 750,000 people killed in a war you deliberately started, and how do you top that?
Takes two have a war, Jefferson Davis was game for the fight. He even pulled the trigger first.
Sure. The attacker, and the attackee. The one who goes to the other's homeland and tries to impose their will is the attacker.
The Attackee generally doesn't have a choice in the matter. When the Attacker decides to have a war, the attackee has no choice but to go along with it.
He even pulled the trigger first.
Lincoln pulled the Trigger first. No warships, no war.
Again, almost his entire staff said this would cause a war. Anderson also said this would cause a war. The only people who don't seem to think this was a provocation to war are modern people who want to justify Lincoln's deliberate sending of Warships with orders to use force to defy the CSA's jurisdiction.
Lincoln made the decision to cause a war. Davis' act was a response to the Lincoln decision. Lincoln was cause, Davis was effect.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.